Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the cardinality (exactly 9 feeds) and the pricing behavior ('Free'), which matters because a paid buy_info sibling exists. It does not mention auth requirements, pagination, or whether the catalog is static.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the field list is dense but earns its place because no output schema exists to carry that information. Slightly list-like, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers cardinality, the shape of each entry, and cost, which is most of what an agent needs. The missing piece is the relationship to the sibling fetch/buy tools, which would make the catalog's purpose fully actionable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's enumeration of returned fields is not parameter documentation, but it does compensate for the absence of an output schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource concretely ('The 9 public-record lead feeds') and enumerates the attributes returned (key, title, source agency, freshness, volume, license terms, regions, record counts), so an agent knows this is a catalog/listing tool rather than a data-fetch tool. It distinguishes itself implicitly from the *_fresh/*_sample siblings that return actual lead records, though it never states that contrast explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance. The word 'Free' hints at a cost distinction versus the buy_info sibling, but the description never says to call this first to discover dataset keys before invoking the *_fresh or *_sample tools, which is the obvious routing decision for an agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.